The Culture of Corruption Between Michelle Malkin and Anita Moncrief

On July 27th, Michelle Malkin launched the publicity tour for Culture of Corruption on Sean Hannity's radio show. Starting on May 18th, the same Michelle Malkin began writing a series of blog posts that featured Anita Moncrief, an informant that blew the whistle on a connection between ACORN and the Obama administration. Malkin has used the monikor "whistle blower" to describe Moncrief, and her coverage hasn't merely been positive but sometimes downright fawning in describing Moncrief. In fact, Malkin featured Moncrief ten times before the book came out. Before this post on the 18th, Malkin had written only once about Moncrief. She has continued to write about Moncrief and has now featured her 26 times since the 18th. This isn't merely a coincidence, in fact, Moncrief is featured in Chapter 8 of Malkin's book. Moncrief is the person most responsible for Malkin's connection between ACORN and the Obama administration.

In fact, it appears that Anita Moncrief is Malkin's only source related to ACORN. If she isn't, Malkin certainly keeps her other sources under wraps because no one else is written about nearly as much. None of this is, in and of itself, a problem. What is a problem is that Malkin willfully doesn't disclose all sorts of things about Moncrief, things that would hurt Moncrief's credibility, and her own relationship with Moncrief. For instance, while she wrote about Moncrief ten times prior to her book being released, never once did Malkin disclose that Moncrief would be featured in the book. It wouldn't have taken much to say, "for full disclosure Anita Moncrief is a source of mine for chapter 8 of my upcoming book". That should have been stated because Malkin was systematically working to increase Moncrief's credibility and visibility with the enormous attention she was paying to her. As such, her readers had a right to know that the same person who's credibility and visibility she was propping up was going to be a source in a chapter in her upcoming book.

More than that, Malkin has simply misconstrued Moncrief. She has misconstrued Moncrief in a way that has made Moncrief look more positive than is reality. In other words, Malkin has emphasized positive things about Moncrief while ignoring or downplaying things that are negative. Malkin calls Anita Moncrief a whistle blower. That's probably an overstatement. Whistle blowers, in the traditional sense, find corruption while working for an organization and blow the whistle while still there. Anita Moncrief didn't do that. Before that, Anita Moncrief applied for a Project Vote credit card, her then employer, under false pretenses. She then used that credit card for personal items. Project Vote found this out and fired her. Only after she was fired did Anita Moncrief blow the whistle on corruption. She didn't seem to notice any corruption at Project Vote while they gave her a paycheck. It was only after she wasn't receiving a paycheck did she notice this corruption. Traditional whistle blowers risk their careers and livelihood to blow the whistle on corruption. Moncrief didn't do that. Furthermore, the theft and fraud obviously go to her credibility. This is mentioned rarely, if ever, by Malkin. Yet, almost every time, Malkin uses the monikor, whistleblower, to describe Moncrief. In fact, in her book, Malkin addressed the theft merely by saying, "Moncrief who was fired by Project Vote for using a company credit card to charge LESS THAN $2000". (emphasis mine) She went on to write for almost ten pages about Moncrief and this was the only mention of the theft.

Beyond this, Malkin often misconstrues Moncrief's contribution to the ACORN story. For instance, here's what Malkin said about Moncrief in a September 16th piece.

All of this information is readily available on the Internet, and MonCrief continues to expose ACORN’s tentacles and thuggery at her own blog here despite Project Vote’s litigious efforts to shut her down. News outlets including the Examiner and Fox News have relied on her whistle-blowing testimony and reporting for months — including her knowledge of ACORN’s Muscle for Money program & the H&R Block shakedown, and ACORN’s gala for Democrats in New York in June to celebrate its 39th anniversary.

Even if everything were accurate, it would be totally inappropriate. Malkin is giving the reader Moncrief's resume. That's totally inappropriate for a source. A source is to be identified not promoted. On top of this, there's so much inaccuracy here it's stunning. First, Fox News cut ties with Moncrief months ago. Glenn Beck's staff found out about Moncrief's theft. Beck was reportedly rather perturbed but was about to forgive her and put her on the air anyway. Then, Moncrief told him she couldn't appear one day and he saw her on another show. At that point, he cut ties and the rest of Fox News followed. Fox News has had scant contact with her since then. To say that Fox News has relied on her for months is a total mischaracterization. It's unclear if Malkin means the D.C. Examiner or if she means examiner.com with the other reference. Moncrief writes for examiner.com but that is a site where almost anyone can have their own blog. If they rely on her it's because she writes for them. As for the D.C. Examiner, their reporters have a plethora of sources and they don't rely on anyone person. Moncrief is nowhere near any of their reporter's most important source on the ACORN story.

Malkin mentions the H&R Block shakedown as something that Moncrief has been feeding the media. Here's what I wrote about that situation about this scheme to shakedown H&R Block in February.

All of this is done in order to beat the target into submission. For weeks and months, ACORN goes on a relentless campaign of harrassment in which a powerful CEO can't seem to shake this group. Wherever they go, ACORN is there, and often they are there before the target. One such campaign involved H&R Block. ACORN showed up at the home of then CEO, Mark Ernst. The relentlessly harrassed him all over his neighborhood. They showed up everywhere he frequented until he became a pariah in his own neighborhood. They finally got concessions. They teamed up to provide free tax service in low income areas. ACORN got a piece of H&R Block's Emerald
Cards. Of course, that's what the media knows about. What's almost certain is that ACORN also received, and likely continues to receive, cash payments directly from H&R Block. Of course, we'll never know how much, if any, cash payments were transferred. That's because all cash that ACORN receives starts in their so called accounting firm, Citizen's Consulting Inc. Because both H&R Block and CCI are both private companies, seeing their books is next to impossible. As such any payments are hidden in the books of two companies that aren't sharing them.

Without revealing my sources, I can tell you I never spoke to Moncrief for this story. I didn't rely on her and unless my sources only spoke to me, no one else did either. In fact, in the article Malkin herself references, Moncrief is quoted after two other former ACORN members (Marcel Reid and Karen Inman) are quoted. The article doesn't rely on Moncrief. Instead, she's used as further evidence. With or without her, the article could have been written and the same point would have been made.

What's worse is that Michelle Malkin misconstrues Moncrief's worth unnecessarily. Moncrief was interviewed by Congressman Darrell Issa's committee for his report. She's testified at a court case on voter registration fraud in Pennsylvania. Moncrief has done plenty to build up her credibility without simply making things up like Fox News relying on her when they cut ties to her months ago.

Another example involved the recent revelation of the Louisiana AG about the embezzlement of Dale Rathke. A couple weeks back, the Attorney General of Louisiana reported that the embezzlement of Dale Rathke may have been as much as $5 million. (it was originally reported at about $1 million) Once again, Malkin made it seem as though Moncrief was leading the charge in reporting this number.

Former ACORN/Project Vote worker Anita MonCrief — the independent whistleblower who worked closely with NYTimes reporter Stephanie Strom on exposing ACORN financial shenanigans last year before Times editors “cut bait” just weeks before Election Day — informed Strom that the true figure was $5 million.

MonCrief also reported the $5 million figure to Warner Todd Huston in April 2009.

Hey, New York Times conservative media monitor: Why don’t you ask Strom about this? Why don’t you ask MonCrief?

Too bad none of this is true. First, the $5 million figure hasn't been confirmed, not even by the AG himself. He's suggested that the figure might be that high. Second, this $5 million figure was discussed at a board meeting of ACORN. Anita Moncrief wasn't on the board. So, if she knew the $5 million figure, she got it from someone at the board meeting. That figure was one of several mentioned and so no one would have responsibly reported that figure definitively. No news organization should have ever responsibly reported that figure as fact. They certainly shouldn't have credited Anita Moncrief for suggesting this figure since she would have gotten it second hand. In fact, to this day, no one, but those responsible for the embezzlement, know for sure just how much, exactly, was embezzled. Yet, Malkin not only reports it as true but makes it seem as though Moncrief was ahead of the curve in reporting it.

Therein lies the rub. Anita Moncrief worked in an office of Project Vote. That office shared space with ACORN, and according to Moncrief, their operations overlapped. Furthermore, according to Moncrief, ACORN used Project Vote to conduct campaign work on behalf of the Obama administration. That's the extent of Anita Moncrief's knowledge of ACORN and Project Vote. Anita Moncrief knows nothing else that many others can't confirm as well. In fact, most of what Moncrief knows, she has learned from other members of ACORN. It is these people that have become lead sources for journalists like Glenn Beck, Kevin Mooney, and Matt Vadum. Outside of James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, Malkin never acknowledges in her blog that anyone outside of Moncrief has contributed anything to exposing ACORN since she began writing about Moncrief. Yet, Anita Moncrief is the only one making the connection between ACORN and the Obama administration so closely. That's how Moncrief became important to Malkin's book, which is about President Obama's Culture of Corruption. Yet, Malkin doesn't appear to have any other sources and that leads naturally to overestimating the one source she does have. As such, rather than merely reporting on the information that Moncrief has, Malkin has become Moncrief's chief promoter. When journalists promote people, that's propaganda not journalism, and that's what we have here. Michelle Malkin has stopped being a journalist on this and is simply a propagandist for Anita Moncrief. Malkin has become a propagandist because Moncrief is her only source. Yet, given her theft and other misdeeds, Moncrief's credibility would be at issue if Michelle Malkin always disclosed the whole story. So, Malkin simply ignores all those inconvenient facts about Moncrief in reporting on her.

It's even worse than that. Malkin could get around dealing with Moncrief. Here's what Malkin said in a September 16th piece.

The files that Strom was planning to get from MonCrief (files that I have since obtained and reviewed) were spreadsheets of donors from Democrat campaigns — Obama, Clinton, Kerry — as well as from the Democratic National Committee that had been passed on to non-profit, tax-exempt, and supposedly non-partisan Project Vote.

If Malkin has spreadsheets that prove a connection between Obama and ACORN all she ever needed to do was download those and link to them every time she tried to prove the connection between Obama and ACORN. That's it. Malkin would never even have to mention Anita Moncrief. Documents don't lie. They have no credibility issues. If Malkin wanted to prove that Obama and ACORN have an incontrovertible connection, all she ever needed to do was download the pertinent documents and simply refer to them. There would no longer be a story here because Malkin wouldn't need to use her pages to prop up Moncrief's credibility by giving her credit for things Moncrief's never done and ignoring bad things that Moncrief has done. Instead, Malkin has stopped using Moncrief as a source and instead has turned Moncrief into a campaign. She has given Moncrief credit for just about everything broken on ACORN even though Moncrief's knowledge was specific to one thing. She's all but ignored everything that Moncrief's done that would hurt her credibility.

All of this would be bad enough except that Malkin has done all of this in lieu of her book coming out in which Moncrief is the one and only source for much of a chapter that links Obama to ACORN. One of the dangers of using a source exclusively is that you have to hope that their credibility can never be challenged. That's not the case with Moncrief. So, starting two months prior to the release of her book, Michelle Malkin has orchestrated a campaign that, by accident or design, has propped up Moncrief's credibility and knowledge far beyond where either should be. Only Michelle Malkin knows what her motivation is in doing this. Yet, maximizing Anita Moncrief's knowledge of ACORN and credibility certainly helps the credibility of Malkin's book. That helps book sales. If people question Anita Moncrief's credibility, they'll question the entire chapter. Some may even question why Malkin relied on her exclusively to begin with. So, there's certainly the appearance of impropriety, be it accidental or intentional. Whatever her motivations, there's no question that Michelle Malkin has systematically emphasized that Anita Moncrief is a whistle blower while all but ignoring her fraud and her theft. In fact, Malkin has all but ignored that the chain of events lead to the impression that far from a crusading whistle blower Anita Moncrief is simply a disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind. That certainly doesn't mean that Moncrief isn't telling the truth but it's not up to Michelle Malkin to decide this. It's up to her to give her audience all the information each and everytime so they can decide.

How many times are conservatives up in arms when someone in the MSM quotes a left winger without identifying them as such? That's really no different than what is happening here. Anita Moncrief is presented as a crusading whistle blower that's merely hoping to bring the truth to light. That's only the case because Michelle Malkin has chosen to give Moncrief credit for things that simply aren't accurate and to dismiss and simply not report those things that would run counter to that image. That's corrupt. So, what are we to make of a journalist engaging in such corruption that has the gaul to do it all in producing a book called Culture of Corruption?

Here's the previous pieces on the event surounding this corruption.

The White House Vs. Drudge

This morning, the Drudge Report lead with a You Tube video in which an older clip, from 2003, of then State Senator Barack Obama supporting single payer. Here's the clip.



Drudge is one of the most visited political sites on the web and so I can only assume that word got back to the White House. That's because one of his communications' folks, Linda Douglass, created her own You Tube video.


Douglass called the initial video "unfair", "out of context", and had a few clips of her own. She had clips of Obama saying clearly that people won't lose their health insurance and that he only wants the public option to create competition. Now, because one of the charges was that President Obama was taken "out of context", Drudge later posted the full video of the event that he posted earlier. Here is that video.





Now, with every passing day, it becomes more and more clear that the White House couldn't try and screw up the legislation, selling, and politics of health care reform and screw it up any worse than they are . This is the latest reincarnation of a White House that simply doesn't know what they are doing.



Once again the White House has picked a fight with an individual news site. They've picked fights with Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Jim Cramer, and Rick Santelli. Now, they're taking on Drudge. Even worse here, all Drudge did was link to a You Tube video. Drudge gets plenty of views on its own but there's no doubt that by drawing attention to this the White House only made even more people watch the video.



The White House defense is absurd. The full video shows that nothing is out of context. It shouldn't surprise anyone that Obama is really for single payer. That's what most true blue liberals are for. It's what Barney Frank says he wants and so to Jan Schakowski. Furthermore, that he has said something totally different to a different audience only means he's just like all politicians who tells everyone what they want to hear. The video the White House produced stinks of not only desperation but to quote Shakespeare, "thou dost protest a bit too much".

This is the latest misstep on health care in a series of missteps that characterize a White House that simply doesn't know what it's doing on health care. First, it set an artificial deadline of August to pass health care reform. That was simply absurd. If this passes, it will be the most complicated piece of legislation in generations. Yet, the president presumed to finish it entirely in seven months? Then, he allowed Congress to write the bill in its entirety. This naturally lead to a public battle between its liberal and moderate wing. The president did little to pipe down the intra party confrontation. As such, Democratic Reps and Senators were forced to go on television to voice their opposition to the legislation. The press conference was a disaster. His explanations on health care were inexplicable. Then, he stepped into by commenting on the arrest of Professor Gates. Now, he's taken on a website and turned a cult video into a video that is the subject of news stories and controversies.

Thou Dost Protest a Bit Too Much: The Book Version

I just received this email from Howard Dean and the Democratic Party.

This morning our team here sent this email to a group of dedicated supporters, but I'm sending it to everyone I know. In 2004, the media let right-wing crackpots like Jerome Corsi spread lies about John Kerry. Now Corsi is publishing another hit piece attacking Barack Obama. This year I'm drawing the line -- we're not going to let Corsi and the Republicans get away with it again. Scroll down to check out Corsi's track record of ideologically driven lies and conspiracy theories, then sign up for the DNC Rapid Response Team and help keep these dirty tricks from ruining another election:

Now, Dean is referring to Jerome Corsi and his new book Obama Nation. Now, I haven't read the book and I know little about Jerome Corsi. Thus, I am in no position to defend him. That said, Dean is the latest in a long line of liberals and Democrats to scream with righteous indignation about this book. It seems liberals are lining up to condemn the book. One after another folks are lining up to condemn this book.

This sort of dance is constant as it is obvious. What's amazing of course is how partisans only notice "lies" when they are directed at their brethren, not the other way. The same folks that are now condemning Corsi were strangely silent when such dubious authors as Richard Clarke, Scott McClellan, and Joe Wilson made all sorts of wild and dubious allegations against the White House. I certainly didn't see the likes of Howard Dean and Media Matters condemn Joe Wilson even though he has largely been discredited. Scott McClellan is largely a hero in those circles even though his allegations are no less dubious than Corsi's.

Conservatives are not immune from such one sided righteous indignation as well. Wilson, Clarke and McClellan are the subject of right wing scorn. You won't see much concern about any number of dubious statements from the likes of Ann Coulter.

The problem with such one sided attacks of righteous indignation is that they lack all credibility. Only a really bitter partisan really believes that truth and lies have anything to do with ideology. Liberals are no more or less prone to lying than conservatives. Lying is inherently a personal flaw. That flaw has absolutely nothing to do with ideology. I certainly believe that someone is misguided if they believe in something like universal health care, but I don't believe that makes them inherently more likely to lie.

The likes of Howard Dean and Media Matters along with many in the right blogosphere see it differently.

The Emerging Racist Narrative?

Are white people that vote against Barack Obama racists? That appears to be an emerging narrative coming from the MSM. It first started with this piece by Mary Mitchell of the Chicago Sun Times.

Looks like Clinton has gotten a lift from the fear-mongering, and is now slightly ahead of Obama in Indiana, and has narrowed his double-digit lead in North Carolina.

Polls in Indiana show Clinton now leads Obama there by four points among likely Democratic voters, 48 percent to 44 percent. Eight percent of voters there remain undecided, according to an analysis by a CNN poll.

...

Meanwhile, Obama continues to put his money on his belief that the majority of Americans won't cast their ballots on race, but for a candidate who they believe will best represent their interests in Washington.

Despite the racially polarizing events, Obama has not wavered from this belief and recently reiterated his belief that if he loses his bid for the Democratic primary, it won't be because of his race.

I'm still not so sure.

Then, there was this piece by Alan Abramowitz two days later.

Racial attitudes have changed dramatically in the United States over the past several decades, of course, and overtly racist beliefs are much less prevalent among white Americans of all classes today. But a more subtle form of prejudice, which social scientists sometimes call symbolic racism, is still out there -- especially among working-class whites.

Symbolic racism means believing that African American poverty and other problems are largely the result of lack of ambition and effort, rather than white racism and discrimination. Who holds symbolically racist beliefs? A relatively large portion of white voters in general and white working-class voters in particular, according to the 2004 American National Election Study, the best data available on this topic

Almost 60 percent of white voters agreed with the statement that "blacks should try harder to succeed." A startling 43 percent of white college graduates nodded at this one, along with 71 percent of whites with no college education.

..

Fully 49 percent of white voters disagreed with the statement that "history makes it more difficult for blacks to succeed." Forty percent of white college graduates disagreed with it, along with 58 percent of whites with no college education.

...

Of course, these results don't mean that Obama won't win over white working-class voters. ... Democrats must hope that disapproval of Bush could lead working-class voters to begrudgingly approve of a black presidential candidate.

Finally, there was this analysis of Hillary Clinton from the Las Vegas Journal.

The Clinton racism strategy first became apparent in Nevada, when her struggling campaign began to publicly talk about her "Hispanic firewall" against Obama among the rank-and-file in the Culinary union. It hit the national consciousness soon thereafter when former President Bill Clinton, after Hillary lost the South Carolina primary, dismissed Obama's big win as a race-inspired victory akin to Jesse Jackson's success in that state years ago.

The record clearly shows that Hillary's campaign was the first to use Obama's race against him. The strategy gained an unexpected boost when Sen. Obama's former pastor, the egomaniacal Rev. Jeremiah Wright, cribbed the Obama spotlight only to show the world that racism could be a black thing, too. The opportunistic Clinton campaign shamelessly took full advantage of the tension. They not only raised questions about what the Wright debacle meant for an Obama presidency, they slyly positioned Hillary, like a latter-day George Wallace (the Alabama governor, not the very funny Las Vegas comedian), as the "working-class" candidate.

...

That fear of the different guy, combined with Obama's pastor disaster, paid off. Not only did it give them late wins in important states, it gave them cover to make a thinly veiled racial appeal to the ruling class of the Democratic Party -- the "superdelegates."

The "superdelegate" whisper campaign goes something like this: Hillary is better built to win in November. Obama is soft and elitist. He's a dangerous unknown quantity. But most importantly, Mr. and Mrs. Democratic Insider Superdelegate, look at the voter numbers in key states. Forget about pledged delegates, wins and losses and overall popular vote. Look deep into the numbers of the key states Democrats must win in November.

Do you see those "working-class" numbers? Those are Hillary people. Those are the people who will win the White House for Democrats this fall. Those are the people who count because, faced with a choice between Obama and Sen. John McCain, "working-class" Democrats will vote for McCain.

This sort of pseudo sociological analysis is startling. Abramowitz apparently thinks that because a large number of white see African American problems with poverts as rooted in laziness that must make them racist. Apparently assigning a flaw of their own human condition rather than others racism must make them racist. Mitchell sees Obama as so infallable that the only reason anyone would vote against him is because they are racist. Finally, the LVR claims that when Hillary Clinton mentions that "working voters" go heavily for her, what she really means is that white people aren't going to vote for Obama.

What is even more startling is that while these columnists bemoan the terrible "racist" disadvantage that Obama will have, none of them seems to mention the overwhelming number of African Americans that are voting for him. Apparently, they see nothing racist in Obama sweeping north of 90% of the African American vote. The only racist analysis they see is white racism on an African American candidate.

Now, we all know that the MSM has been in the tank for Obama since the beginning, but now they have begun a new campaign. It appears they will try and guilt white folks into voting for Obama. They will create a plethora of pseudo sociological commentaries bemoaning the racism that has been unearthed as a result of this campaign. They will "analyze" about how difficult it will be for Obama to overcome this institutional racism. Furthermore, they might even create the perception that any mention of Reverend Wright will only be done to "stoke racist fears".

Now, I won't pretend that there is no racism in this country. I won't pretend that there aren't plenty of whites that won't vote for Obama because of his skin color. I am also not naive enough to think that 90% of African Americans aren't simply voting for Obama based on qualifications either. That said, Obama's electoral problems have a lot more to do with real political issues rather than race. He has struggled with "white working voters" for many reasons not the least of which were his comments in San Francisco. It is absurd and faulty to blame his emerging demographic problems simply on race.

Here's the rub, as Shakespeare might say. The MSM is likely not necessarily looking to make good sound analyses. Instead, they are actively trying to put Obama in the White House. If that means that they will need to guilt whites into voting for him so be it. If making blanket racist charges is the way to go, then it appears that is where they will go.

Blue Cross/Blue Shield Vs. Private Family Physicians...Corruption in Texas II

Introduction: Please note, if you haven't read the prologue to this piece, you can find that here. The prologue is an introduction to the overriding principles that this case uncovers. Please take a minute to read that in order to understand this portion better.

As the story I am about to tell unraveled for me, I couldn't help but notice some similarities between it and the movies of two of my favorite directors, Sergio Leone and Robert Altman. Those two film legends often told their tale by unfolding multiple story lines all at the same time and skipping from one sub plot, seemingly randomly, until the entire puzzle fit into place at the end of the film. Such is the story of the way in which BCBS, and their surrogates Dr. Doug Curran, Dr. Keith Miller, Dr. Fred Merian, retaliated against private family physician Dr. Shirley Pigott of Victoria, Texas. This story, much like other stories of corruption that I've covered, has many twists and turns.





Since, the reader can easily get lost in all the twists and turns, I will introduce many of the characters and entities that are involved first. Dr. Doug Curran is private family physician in a modest area of Texas. He is also the former head of the Texas Academy of Family Physicians and continues to be one of three members of the super secret BCBS Texas Medical Advisory Committee. The TAFP is the Texas branch of the American Academy of Family Physicians. The AAFP is the most powerful special interest group representing family physicians. Dr. Curran serves on the super secret BCBS Texas Medical Advisory Committee with two other doctors, Dr. Keith Miller and Dr. Fred Merian. Dr. Miller is currently a private family physician in Center, Texas and he was during the events in question the head of the Texas Medical Board Disciplinary Committee. That committee is in charge of judging cases of purported malfeasance by doctors in Texas. Dr. Fred Merian is the third person on the BCBS Texas Medical Advisory Committee and he was during the time in question also the head of the Texas Medical Association. The TMA is the biggest association of doctors in Texas.





Dr. Shirley Pigott is a practicing private family physician for twenty five year private family physician in Victoria, Texas. She was also during the time in question an active member in the TAFP. Jim White was the executive director of the TAFP during the period in question. Dr. Doug Henley was the Executive Director of the AAFP during the time in question. Dee Whittlesey was the "physician's advocate" for BCBS during the time in question. )Katie Johnsonius was an attorney at the Texas Medical Board. Scott Freshour was head of litigation at the TMB. Finally, Robert Simpson was lead general counsel at the TMB. (all during the period in question) Dr. Pigott went through the process of medical peer review at the Texas Medical Board. This involved a process called an informal settlement conference. This was the TMB's equivalent of a hearing and this hearing was presided by Dr. Keith Miller. The committee rendered its findings in writing, and the process of appealing these findings went through a state agency called the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH). Dr. Pigott eventually hired former surgeon and semi retired attorney Clark Watts to represent her at this hearing.





The story starts in the middle of 2002 when BCBS sent Dr. Pigott a correspondence. BCBS determined that her billing practices raised suspicions and thus they were going to formally challenge them. Unbeknownst to Dr. Pigott at the time was that the committee responsible for going over her billing was the BCBS Texas Medical Advisory Committee made up of Curran, Miller, and Marien. This case was resolved several months later with BCBS deciding that some of Dr. Pigott's treatment bills were too large, and they took their standard financial action. (in other words they docked Dr. Pigott some fees and payments)





At roughly the same time, there was a growing and more restless set of AAFP members. These members were private family physicians. Throughout the country members complained that they were being squeezed, intimidated, and targeted by insurance companies. Many members complained that the AAFP wasn't doing enough to represent their interests against insurance companies. After about a year, the group finally decided to stop complaining and do something about it. What eventually grew was a group of doctors that called themselves the "35 group" (because the group initially had 35 members). They formed an alliance of private family physicians that was going to demand action from the AAFP.

The "35 group"* came up with three mandates that they planned on presenting first at the state level and eventually nationally. The three mandates were as follows: 1)the AAFP was going to be more aggressive in representing the interests of family physicians, 2)it was not acceptable for insurance companies to refuse to pay for medically necessary office tests or minor procedures 3)a clearing house would be created for complaints of family physicians to be shared among members of AAFP. These three mandates would serve as the bedrock for a new commitment for the AAFP to serve the interest of its private family doctor members more aggressively.

Dr. Pigott was put in charge of getting these three mandates through the Texas branch of the AAFP later that year in 2005. The proper procedure in the TAFP would for these three mandates to be debated in the Health Care and Managed Care Services Committee. The committee was enthusiastic about the three mandates and there was near unanimous agreement that this be moved to the full TAFP. Only one doctor argued against the resolutions - Dr. Doug Curran. Dr. Curran was not even a member of this particular committee. He was however the President Elect of the TAFP and decided to sit in on this particular hearing. At this time, Dr. Pigott had only heard of Dr. Curran, and this was her first direct contact with him. Despite Curran's dissension, the mandates passed and eventually they were passed in the national organization (AAFP) later that year.

In March of 2006, Dr. Pigott treated a peculiar patient. (due to the doctor/patient relationship the name obviously can't be revealed) The standard procedure that Dr. Pigott uses in her practice, initially, for a patient who wants her "health risks" evaluated is to take a medical history and order several basic lab tests. Then, when the tests come back, Dr. Pigott would meet with the patient to interpret the tests. It is this second appointment where Dr. Pigott would teach the patient what the tests meant and what the patient can do to improved her health risks. It is now that proper dieting, exercise, and frankly general lifestyle changes can be recommended based on the results of the tests. This particular patient didn't want any part of the second meeting. She sent Dr. Pigott's office a letter requesting that the tests be mailed to her, in violation of Dr. Pigott's policy. A second letter was more confrontational and threatened a complaint to the medical board if the tests weren't sent. According to a board rule, the patient has the right to receipt of those tests within 15 calendar days.


Because the behavior was so unusual, things unfolded before anyone realized. Dr. Pigott's administrative staff received the letters. The tests weren't sent because that is not the procedure. Dr. Pigott wasn't made aware of the letters until just more than 15 days had gone by. The tests were then sent out and no one thought about it again for a while.

In July of 2006, Dr. Pigott again prepared to present that year's mandates on behalf of the group of 35. These were several specific mandates in pursuit of accomplishing the goals of the mandates passed the previous year. Dr. Pigott expected this particular hearing to go fairly smoothly. She had been in contact with the TAFP for months, and each of the mandates had been announced to the organization. Dr. Pigott believed prior to the hearing that this would nothing more than a mere formality.

The hearing went nothing like she expected right from the start. The hearing was scheduled for two hours and it was an hour and forty five minutes before she was even allowed to speak. Each of her proposals was met with resistance. Members claimed that mandates were already being covered by other mandates, or that they had already been addressed. No matter what Dr. Pigott proposed, the committee had a confrontational response to it. Not only were each of the mandates killed but Dr. Pigott felt humiliated by the treatment of the committee. The person that was leading the charge in resisting each of these mandates was of course none other than Dr. Curran. Again, he wasn't even part of the committee, but rather decided to sit in as part of his duties as President.

Within months, several other things happened. First, Dr. Pigott was formally notified in writing of an upcoming informal settlement conference to settle a complaint by the previous patient who claimed that Dr. Pigott didn't return their lab reports in proper time. Then, Dr. Curran appeared in this advertisement for BCBS





Then this puff piece about Dr. Curran appeared on the internet

Dr. Doug Curran is everywhere these days. The longtime Athens-based family physician has been spotted in a few magazines you may have heard of, such as Newsweek and Sports Illustrated.

Through his longtime association with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, Curran appears – wearing his white lab coat, clutching a stethoscope and looking more serious than one usually finds him – in a series of their print ads.

While those ads have garnered him the most attention over the last few months, a less visible appearance in another magazine carries even more prestige.On page S-18 of December's Texas Monthly (S for Super), Curran's name is listed under the Family/General Practice section of "Texas Super Doctors
2005."

BCBS was referenced in connection to Curran throughout the article and Dee Whittelsey was even quoted in the article throwing fawning praise at Curran. Dr. Pigott found these two things to signal a gross conflict of interest. In fact, it likely violated the Texas Medical Practices Act's position on so called testimonial advertising. Dr. Pigott began reaching out to anyone that would listen. She went up the chain of command at not only the TAFP but the AAFP. She even reached out to Dee Whittelsey herself. She even made several attempts to contact Curran himself. She called Jim White and Doug Henley along with Whittelsey and Curran.


The responses ranged from no comment to simply that none of what she complained about was in fact a conflict of interest. Dr. Pigott was not satisfied. She decided to use listserve. Listserve is the intranet chat room for all members of the AAFP. She complained on listserve that she believed the advertisement, the article, along with Curran's confrontational behavior amounted to a conflict of interest.

Finally, Dr. Curran confronted Dr. Pigott directly by phone. During a twenty minute conversation, Curran vigorously defended his actions and refused to acknowledge any conflict of interest. Then, out of the blue Curran said this,

by the way, do you know I'm on the BCBS Texas Medical Advisor Committee

By September of 2007, her case came up in the informal settlement conference in front of the disciplinary committee chaired by Dr. Keith Miller. Dr. Pigott expected nothing more than a minor slap on the wrist. After all, not sending out lab reports with 15 days (she says the lab reports got to the patient in about 20 days) is frankly the medical violations equivalent of j walking.

Instead, Dr. Miller began questioning Dr. Pigott very heavily. Throughout the hearing Miller tried to get Pigott to admit to wrong doing. He asked questions like

isn't the failure to give lab reports a violation of your oath as a doctor

Dr. Pigott felt like a witness on cross examination. This simple hearing about a technical violation turned into an interrogation. There was typical around a six month lag time between the informal hearing and the written findings being issued and thus this portion wouldn't pick up until the beginning of March of 2007.

The next event was a memo emailed throughout the AAFP. The memo essentially said that Dr. Curran would no longer appear in advertisements for BCBS. The memo was worded carefully. It never assigned any wrongdoing to any of Curran's prior actions, however it did essentially say that Curran would cease all the activities that Dr. Pigott was concerned about.

In one week, at the end of February and the beginning of March, three simultaneous though seemingly divorced (on the surface at least) events happened. First, she received a letter from the AAFP saying that her list serve privileges would be suspended. Then, Dr. Pigott attended a special hearing of the TAFP to discuss the concerns that she had raised about Dr. Curran. Since he had promised to cease all the activities that concerned her, Dr. Pigott had decided that it was no longer necessary to bring any mandates against him up for debate. Thus, when called, she merely said she was fine.

The TAFP, lead by Curran himself, then proceeded to charge three mandates against Dr. Pigott: 1)Dr. Pigott acted nastily and inappropriately toward Dr. Curran, 2)the Committee had treated Dr. Pigott appropriately at the 2006 meeting (when all of the mandates she brought to the floor were voted down), and 3)Dr. Pigott must write a letter to everyone she contacted regarding this matter and essentially make a mea culpa.

Then, when she got home from the meeting, she received the written findings from the TMB Disciplinary Committee. (keep in mind again that this is all over a patient not receiving lab results in fifteen but about twenty days) Here are some highlights.

Board to take disciplinary action against Respondent based upon Respondent's unprofessional or dishonorable conduct that is likely to injure the public, in particular, the disruptive behaviors that could reasonably be expected to impact the quality of her patients' care, as described in Board Rule 190.8(2)(Q).(3) [c04-Vio Rule 165 – Med Recds] Section 164.051 (a)

...

For a period of one year from the date of the Board's entry of this Order, Respondent's practice shall be monitored by a physician

...

The Compliance Division of the Board shall designate the monitor and may change the monitor at any time for any reason. The monitor shall have expertise in a similar specialty area as Respondent. The Compliance Division shall provide a copy of this Order to the monitor, together with other information necessary to assist the monitor.

...

The Compliance Division shall select records for at least 30 patients seen by Respondent during each three-month period following the last day of the month of entry of this Order

Thus, to conclude, for being late in getting lab results, Dr. Pigott was

unprofessional or dishonorable conduct that is likely to injure the public, in particular, the disruptive behaviors that could reasonably be expected to impact the quality of her patients' care

The punishment for this behavior included being monitored by a doctor appointed by the TMB and access to up to 30 patient's records. I believe the term draconian comes to mind when analyzing this punishment.

At this point, Dr. Pigott finally realized for sure that something was rotten in Denmark, as Shakespeare might say. Dr. Pigott decided not to accept the findings. In her letter, Dr. Pigott disputed everything the disciplinary committee found and for the first time she used the term, sham peer review.

This incident is an egregious example of what is commonly termed sham peer review. Without conscience, certain members of the Board have defamed my character and have determined to cause me harm.

Sham peer review is a process by which medical peer reviews like the one that Dr. Pigott had just gone through get corrupted. They can be summarized by one simple phrase: judge, jury, and executioner. The corrupting forces usually not only bring the charges, but they are the ones presenting the charges, and also in a position to rule on them. (veterans of my work will remember the case of Dennis Lennox in which he faced his own cousin of sham peer review. The concept of judge, jury and executionor certainly applied to his case as well) In this case, while there is no proof, the patient was likely a plant, and the corrupting forces always planned to bring the case in front of Dr. Keith Miller so that he could issue this draconian charge.

She decided to investigate some of the players. The most important discovery was the discovery in the TMB website that listed in the bio of Dr. Keith Miller was his position in the BCBS Texas Medical Advisory Board. She began making inquiries to members of the TMB, TAFP, AAFP, and BCBS itself. Everyone she spoke to neither confirmed or denied his position on this panel. She shared what she had found with the TMB attorney Katie Johnonius. Johnonius was unmoved, and thus the battle would now move to SOAH, the medical peer review version of appeals courts.

Once she discovered this new information, she took everything she had and hired Austin, Texas lawyer Clark Watts. Watts took what she gave him and approached Scott Freshour, head of litigation at the TMB. (the head of litigation would take over the case from here). Freshour and Watts agreed to a reduced penalty. This penalty removed most of the draconian language but still instituted a heavy fine and other stiff measures (continuing education, lighter monitoring, etc). Pigott refused to take this. Watts approached Freshour again and this time they settled on a $500 fine and 10 hours of continuing education in patient safety.

While Pigott considered even a one cent fine extortion, she finally relented and accepted the terms of the reduced penalty. Pigott then proceeded to take her story to any of the media on Texas. She approached the Dallas Morning News, the Houstin Chronicle, the Corpus Christi Caller Times, the San Antonio Express, as well as her local Victoria Advocate. She even approached her local ABC affiliate. Despite the potential far reaching implications if this story is accurate, she was denied every single time. In fact, she told me that the conversations we had (I would estimate between 5-6 hours) in preparation for this story were the most that any media ever gave her. Even though one could reasonable hypothesis, that this case would open up a pandora's box that could lead potentially to uncovering systemic corruption perpetrated by BCBS upon the entire medical system, the media would have none of this story.

The media has also largely ignored the travails of Dr. Keith Miller subsequent to some of the events described here. A google search of Dr. Keith Miller finds only certain activist groups reporting on his corruption

Notorious Texas Medical Board (TMB) henchman, Dr. Keith Miller, abruptly resigned his position on the TMB on Friday, September 7, 2007.

Miller’s resignation was due to the intense scrutiny of his abusive and tyrannical actions against physicians while on the TMB. It was also due to his relationship with Bridget Hughes, his Nurse Practitioner. Bridget Hughes, who was found to be a narcotics addict by the Texas Board of Nurse Examiners while employed by Miller, continues to work as Miller’s nurse practitioner at his office in Center, Texas. Hughes had her prescription writing ability suspended when she was disciplined by the Texas Board of Nurse Examiners (TBNE) on April 16, 2007 for stealing (50) triplicate prescriptions from her previous supervising physician employer and forging his name to obtain narcotics for her own use.

The story mentioned regarding a nurse of his stealing 50 pills of a controlled substance and forging Dr. Miller's name. Yet, this nurse practioner, Bridget Hughes, has never been brought up on charges, and you aren't going to find much mention of this crime anywhere in the Texas media.

In part 3, I will discuss my conclusions and the implications I see of this case, including the near black out by the media. So please follow the link for the conclusion of this series.

Predatory Lending or Mortgage Fraud

There is an interesting article in today's Real Clear Markets that tries to add some context to the notion that borrowers were swindled and thus must be bailed out. Now, it has long been my contention that for the most part borrowers were active participants in the swindle, and this article lends credence to that notion...

So-called ‘occupancy fraud’—in which a speculator claims he will live in a house he is buying when it is actually a property he is purchasing for investment purposes-- accounted for about 20 percent of all mortgage swindles during the go-go years of subprime lending, according to a study by BasePoint Analytics, which specializes in detecting mortgage fraud. Buyers hid their intentions because lenders generally require bigger down payments on purchases of investment properties, and some builders will limit the number of investors they allow into a new development, because these buyers are more likely to walk away from a property when the market tanks. Home builders in hot markets were especially susceptible to this fraud because investors would purchase houses in new developments with the intent of flipping them as soon as they were ready to be occupied. Several builders told the Wall Street Journal earlier this year that while they thought that only 10 percent of their sales were to investors in recent years, in fact, it now appears that as many as a quarter of their homes were being snapped up by speculators, who often lied about their intent even when builders required them to sign documents affirming they would reside in
their homes.

...

One area of particular abuse was so-called ‘stated income’ loans which require little or no documentation of a borrower’s earnings. Originally designed to help self-employed borrowers who don’t have ready access to documents like W-2 forms, no-doc loans became widespread during the height of the real estate boom because lenders naively believed that borrowers wouldn’t lie about income to qualify for loans that they couldn’t afford to pay back. But as soaring housing values made it possible for homeowners to refinance out of unaffordable mortgages using their new homes’ rising equity, lying on no-doc loans became common. One lender which compared 100 stated income loans with IRS data found that in 60 percent of cases, the income that borrowers claimed exceeded their actual earnings by 50 percent or more. BasePoint found in its study that some applications exaggerated income by as much as 500 percent.

It should be noted that mortgage fraud is not new. I firmly believe that the reason that it exploded over the last couple years is because banks opened their programs up to be exploited. Stated loans, for instance, went through a revolution from perfectly reasonable mortgage instruments to instruments of corruption. They started out as loans geared for small business owners, investors, and others who's income was either complicated or choppy. In the last several years, the "revolutionized" into loans for anyone who couldn't qualify with their actual income.

Furthermore, along with brokers and borrowers banks must take their place in line of responsibility. Most banks allowed for stated loans in which the stated income was absurd. On regular bases, banks would accept income of janitors that was north of 50k per year, teachers at 100k per year, and secretaries at 50k per year. The rules were essentially made to be broken by banks who's only objective was to close as many loans as possible. The borrowers must share responsibility because they signed their names to applications in which their stated income was nowhere near their real income. Whatever the reason, the bottom line is that their signature was on the page of income that wasn't real. It is absurd to say they were swindled when they signed the documents. Brokers weren't themselves terribly concerned with whether or not a borrower could actually pay a loan back. The only thing that concerned the broker was closing the loan and making money. Thus, you have a confluence of players who each were in their own way responsible for the fraud.

The issue of "occupancy fraud" is even more complicated and there the borrower is even more directly responsible. Occupancy fraud is when it is stated the borrower plans on moving into a property when they really intend to use that property for investment purposes. Because investment properties have much stricter terms and higher rates, it is always more advantageous for a borrower to get a loan on a property stated as one they will live in. Many scams of mortgage fraud ran where one borrower worked with multiple brokers and banks at the same time to buy multiple properties all at once and list them all as owner occupied. Most times the banks and brokers didn't know about the other loans at all, certainly not the banks. Many other times, borrowers refused to accept the rates that investment property loans would bring and would shop around for mortgage brokers willing to do commit "occupancy fraud". Of course, there were likely other times when borrowers were surprised with low rates and simply didn't realize that there was occupancy fraud.

The key issue is how much of the mortgage crisis was created by the fraud and how much of it was perpetuated by the borrowers, at least in part. If borrowers were swindled, then politicians can make the reasonable arguement that they deserve relief. If they were in on the swindle, then you are rewarding fraud. Ultimately, the borrowers have to take responsibility because they signed their names to the fraud. Whether they realized it or not, their signature was on the document. That is the rub, as Shakespeare might say. Whether or not they were in on the scam, they signed their name to it making themselves responsible for it.

The proponents of bailouts claim that borrowers were innocent victims of predators...

On the one hand, remedies proposed separately by Senators Clinton and Obama, as well as the bailout package agreed to by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress last week, essentially treat many subprime borrowers as victims of seedy mortgage brokers, opportunistic lenders and aggressive Wall Street houses. Under this narrative many borrowers were ‘lured” (in a term used by both Sen. Obama and the New York Times) into mortgages they couldn’t afford, and the Bush administration’s rescue plan--which involves urging borrowers and lenders to work out new loan terms individually--amounts to too little help at too laborious a pace to make a difference.

My problem with this narrative has always been that this sort of behavior has always gone on and yet it never lead to a mortgage crisis before. To say that the mortgage crisis was caused by predators that preyed on unsuspecting borrowers is to frankly give my industry too much credit. That's because this narrative assumes that brokers only recently learned to take advantage of people. That simply isn't the case. In my opinion, what really happened was that banks opened up programs to be exploited, and they were by unscrupulous brokers with the active or at least passive participation of borrowers. None of the players deserve a bailout including the borrowers.

Unionize Grady Hospital

Introduction: As a generally conservative thinker, I have no special love for unions. In fact, a good friend of mine grew up in the wealthy Detroit suburb of Gross Pointe. He is fond of telling me that nothing has ruined the auto industry like unions. That is debateable, however I am usually in favor of less union power over more. In fact, I explained the corrossive effect unions would have on Wal Mart in this piece. Of course, in the case of Grady Hospital, the unions have no power because there are none. In the case of Grady Hospital, unions would actually fit just like two puzzle pieces. In fact, they would fit so well that as you will see that is much of the reason that it will be so difficult to unionize the hospital. Grady is currently in terrible financial turmoil and is estimated to need half a billion dollars to survive. It has a long history of corruption epitomized by the case of State Senator Charles Walker. There is also a history of retaliation against whistle blowers. (including Joyce Harris, the whistle blower in the case of State Senator Charles Walker)

Unions have had a longstanding tradition of playing a vital role in representing the staff of hospitals all around the country. SEIU, the powerhouse union, is among the most active unions in hospitals. As they rightfully explain, a union would play a very positive role in a hospital just like Grady Hospital...

Around the country, growing numbers of hospital employees are forming unions.
Whether we are nurses or other professionals, technicians or business office clericals,
housekeeping or dietary workers, hospital employees today need a voice in the decisions that affect their jobs and their patients.

Forming a union guarantees we are heard because we speak with one unified voice. By working together as a group, rather than as isolated individuals, we can address key issues and concerns in our hospitals and health care facilities, including:

Staffing & workloads

Pay & benefits.

Job security.

A voice in hospital policies.

Rather than leaving all the decisions about our jobs, pay and benefits, and professional standards to hospital administrators, having a union allows hospital employees to negotiate over these issues. Because a negotiated union contract is a legally binding document, management can’t arbitrarily change policies or cut benefits without the approval of hospital employees.

Everything that SEIU says a union can do is vital at Grady Hospital. A union would be just the right organization to investigate and force change against the alleged corruption and horrible patient care at Grady Hospital that I have been documenting. A union would act as the perfect counter balance to the powerful, and possibly corrupt administration, in matters where staff dares to blow the whistle on the poor patient care that goes on there.

If hospital employees witness corruption or unacceptable patient care, they would have the union to protect them against the the likely retaliation they would face if they reported it. In the case of Grady Hospital, unions would play the extra role of being the watch dog against corruption and protectors of whistle blowing employees along with the other functions that unions hold. In other words, unions could be the ones leading the charge in rooting out the systemic corruption that infects Grady Hospital. Whatever power the administration and its allies hold at Grady Hospital, they would not be able to ram over a national union like SEIU.

Unions would bring with them one other vital thing, a great health insurance plan. Along with the problems of corruption that Grady Hospital has, it has one other problem: simple demographics. While Grady Hospital is now and always will be a hospital that primarily serves the indigent, the unions would bring with them thousands of patients with a great health insurance package: the union's. It can and must be part of the agreement that unionizing Grady must be done in conjunction with the union or unions being able to send their members to Grady Hospital.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, and these new patients would be provided with top notch care. Grady measures up with any hospital in terms of services and facilities. Once the unions step in and root out the corruption and demand that conditions improve it would become a model hospital that its members would visit without being encouraged. Frankly, being a client of the place you are employed in, as this relationship is like, is natural and expected. The unions, like SEIU and others, would not only not mind, but they would frankly do much more in order to get the opportunity to unionize the large staff at Grady Hospital. By unionizing, it would solve in one fell swoop the inherent budgetary problems that an indigent hospital like Grady has.

Therein lies the rub, as Shakespeare once said. It is not so simple to get this done. That's because the unions likely would do what they intend to do and that is root out the corruption that is going on there. That's why the powers that be claim that turning over the board to some obscure non profit tax code (501(3)C) is the way to save Grady Hospital rather than a sensible idea like unionizing it. The powers that be don't want the corruption rooted out because they are the ones corrupting it. The ongoing narrative is that this 501(3)C is the only hope. It isn't. In fact, it is no hope at all. Unionizing Grady Hospital is a sensible idea who's time has come. Anyone who really cares about the future of this hospital should demand that this sensible idea be implemented.

Epilogue:

While I would love to take credit for this idea, for full disclosure this fine and sensible idea came from a source of mine who does care about the direction of the hospital.

Michelle Obama and Shakespeare

Introduction: My favorite Shakespeare line is the rub, however that is followed a close second by

thou dost protest a bit too much

and it is this line that I will reference when analyzing the latest dust up over Michelle Obama suggesting that she had never been proud of America before today.


The technical term for what Michelle Obama has said is a gaffe. At a campaign rally, Michelle Obama said this.

People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and … for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback

John McCain's wife quickly used a campaign appearance to lob a backhanded dig at Obama when she said this.

I am proud of my country,I don’t know if you heard those words earlier … but I am very proud of my country.”

Now, this slight dig seemed perfectly appropriate to me, however what I have witnessed the rest of the day appears to be nothing more than pile on and overkill. Just about every single Conservative anywhere is using this opportunity to question Obama's patriotism. Here is how Jonathon Last put it.

It was an extraordinary declaration for a 44-year-old woman. She expanded on it a bit later, claiming that "Life for regular folks has gotten worse over the course of my lifetime, through Republican and Democratic administrations. It hasn't gotten much better."

Do these comments provide a glimpse of her general political worldview--one that is surprisingly critical of America for the wife of a presidential candidate? Or do they suggest a certain narcissism about the Obamas and their view of themselves? Or both?

In many ways, Michelle Obama's stump speech is reminiscent of her husband's. She dwells at length on the issue of change and frequently talks in the idiom of political self-help. She worried that "We spend more time thinking about what can't be done, what can't change, what won't work. And the problem with that is that it cuts us off from one another in our own communities. It's cut us off from the rest of the world. And the sad part about it is we're passing on all these fears, this cynicism--we're passing it on to the next generation." "Everything," she explained, "begins and ends with a little bit of hope and a whole lot of dreaming."

Here is how Michelle Malkin put it...

Only her husband’s run for president has made her proud of America? That’s…extremely narcissistic and self-centered.

Nothing America has done in Michelle Obama’s adult life, which at 44 goes back 26 years to 1982, has made her proud of her country? Nothing? Not winning the Cold War? Not our regular and orderly transitions of power based on the rule of law? Not the fact that we feed and defend the world, not that we lead in science and

Here is how Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs put it.

I wasn’t shocked by the statement; it’s pretty standard “progressive” thinking. But it’s interesting to note that the person who said it is a graduate of Harvard Law School who has held many prestigious and highly paid professional positions, and has benefited enormously from living in a country of which she has never been proud.

These are the sort of echoes that can be found among many Conservatives and Republicans all over the media. Talk radio can't get enough of it for instance. I would warn my ideological cohorts to be careful with just how much this little episode is milked. Only Mrs. Obama knows what she meant to say, but I would bet that she misspoke and left a word or two out. I doubt very much that this is really the first time she is proud of America. I think this is the most she is proud of America. Either way, when we get into the hyperanalysis and hyperbole (there are those saying she insulted America and all it stands for) that are some are taking on over a throw away line in the middle of the campaign, I get reminded of the Shakespeare line...

thou dost protest a bit too much

It certainly seems as though some in the Conservative media are attaching more worth to a gaffe than it is necessarily worth. Once they do that some might ask why are they making such a big deal out of a few misspoken words. Some people might get the idea that conservatives don't have anything of substance to attack Obama with. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. There are plenty of substantive issues on which Obama could be legitimately attacked on. Those will all get lost of everyone is spending all their time hyperanalyzing a few lines from one speech from his wife. She made a gaffe. This is a legitimate story, and it should be covered. I just warn everyone to be mindful of the glee and intensity that they cover it with, or risk that it boomerangs back and gives undo and unneeded sympathy where it doesn't belong.

Kenya in Crisis Day 24: Kenya and My Favorite Shakespeare Line

The tribal mentality was foreign to me up until I started following the crisis in Kenya. Ever since the election unraveled the country has decayed into tribal warfare. The warfare pits the Kikuyu, blamed for the election, against most of the rest of the tribe.

As the two political leaders, Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga, jockey for position and power, there is one thing that is becoming more and more clear. The country of Kenya is becoming more like a geographical area. At this point, more and more the people of Kenya aren't identifying themselves by their national identity but rather by their tribal identity.

The trouble is that tribes span multiple countries. Most of these tribes can find root throughout much of Africa. These supposed leaders don't lead the people of their tribe. Thus, we have the sort of mob rule that is going on in Kenya. As people take sides according to tribes rather than nationality, those in charge are usually those with the most men, artillery, and supplies.

The sort of tribal identity that is spawned by this violence almost always leads to warlords being in charge. It is what happened in Somalia and in Rwanda. Therein lies the rub, as Shakespeare would say. At this point, Kenya is slowly disappearing and what is popping up are a number of tribes who have no nation.

It is sad and peculiar to watch the two sides jockey for power. Power of what I would ask. By the time this crisis is done there won't be a country. The folks of Kenya had a choice and most of them chose their tribe. It is an easy choice to make of course. These tribes are many, many years old, thousands at times. They are steeped in tradition. Kenya, the country, is not even one hundred years old, not in its current form at least. When faced with a choice most folks chose their tribes.

Now that they have, it is anyone's guess who exactly is in charge. The tribal leaders are nowhere to be found many times in other countries. The leaders now are those with the most "muscle". The folks with the most machetes, the most men, and other artillery will eventually be the ones with the power.

The vacuum left by the chaos of the aftermath of the election has left a window for warlords and other menaces. While all this goes on two political factions vie for power of a nation that is soon a nation on paper only. The real power will be decided on the streets of Kenya. It will likely be decided by men carrying machetes. Therein lies the rub.

My Favorite Shakespeare Line, the Mortgage Mess, and What It All Means

First, let's start with a little William Shakespeare

To be, or not to be: that is the question:: Whether 't is nobler in the mind to suffer: The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,: Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,: And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep:: No more; and by a sleep to say we end: The heartache and the thousand natural shocks: That flesh is heir to,-'t is a consummation: Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;: To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there 's the rub:

The rub is a phrase made famous to me by the movie Swingers. It means the catch or even maybe a double edged sword. I believe it also has some meaning in the evolving mortgage crisis and I intend to show how.

First, here is a quick introduction. What I am about to say comes from the perspective of a mortgage professional however it is only one mortgage professional. There is in no way a consensus toward my perspective. Much of my evidence is merely anecdotal and not scientific and I personally dislike anecdotal evidence. That said, my anecdotal evidence can be combined with a certain logic as well other compelling facts to make for a very strong arguement.

In the simplest way, the mortgage mess occurred because banks opened up programs so aggressively that irresponsible people qualified for and bought homes they simply couldn't afford. I know this because I saw how aggressive the programs became. The poster child is the so called 620 stated/stated to 100% program which became the industry standard for about a year. This means that a borrower with a 620 score (marginal at best) could buy a property without proving their income or liquid assets and do it with no money down. Furthermore, the real estate boom lasted for a good four years or more depending on your definition of a boom.

Now, somewhere in the middle of the boom banks went from offering aggressive programs to offering irresponsible programs. It is hard to pin point when, however this was not short, a minimum of two years in my estimation. These irresponsible programs were masked by a hot market which allowed folks to refinance or sell before anything really bad happened.

Here is what I believe happened and happened a lot. An irresponsible borrower bought a property that they couldn't afford. They bought it because neither their income or their liquid assets were ever verified. They bought a property they couldn't afford because they are irresponsible. These irresponsible borrowers would be able to manage their payments for a while: six months, nine months, a year. By manage, I mean they would begin to borrow in order to make payments on a property they couldn't afford to begin with. In other words, they would take out credit cards, personal loans, etc in order to pay their home loan.

Once they were tapped out they went back for a new loan. They would get it because in the meantime their property had increased in value by ten, fifteen and twenty percent. Their mortgage broker would wrap up all of their payments into one new loan. Now, while the new payment was lower than all of their current payments combined, it was still more than they started with. Keep in mind, folks that couldn't really afford their home to begin with were now tapping some serious equity. I believe firmly that for a large majority of folks this cycle happened more than once and several times for several folks.

I believe this firmly because I caught a lot of these folks on the back end of several such transactions. The most extreme case involved a couple that had a debt to income ratio (in reality that is as opposed no doubt to what was presented to the bank) of 100%. That means before any taxes were taken out monthly, they had as many debts, just on their credit report (this doesn't count other such things as food, gas, etc) as their entire income. This couple had tapped into their equity multiple times to wrap up credit only to continue the same cycle after each refinance. Once they found me, their situation had gotten so extreme that even the lax bank rules for stated loans weren't going to accept the ridiculous income I would have needed to claim in order to get the loan done. Furthermore, even if I could do a loan, it wasn't going to solve anything for them. I suggested the only proper course: sell and buy a cheaper property. At the time, summer of 2006, the property still had about 15k in equity even despite the endless refinances. They refused. They had put too much into the property and they weren't going to walk away. I don't know what happened to these folks but I can guess.

This is not my only example, just the most extreme, however all my evidence is anecdotal. I believe that what I am hypothesizing makes sense. We know that banks opened up their programs to irresponsible folks. This is exactly the sort of behavior that irresponsible people exhibit. We also know that real estate went up with no stopping for years. We also know that much of that push came from a lot of new folks getting involved in real estate.

What does all of this mean? If I am right then all the proposed legislation, rate freeze and bailouts are totally inconsequential. Therein lies the rub. There is no getting out of this mortgage mess. Keep in mind that most of these inflated prices have long come down and continue to drop. All of these folks used every opportunity to tap into their equity so most of them owe at or near the top of the market. First, it means there is no new loan for them. Unless Congress opens up 150% Loan to value loans none of these folks will qualify for anything no matter what they propose. Second, it means these folks aren't going to be saved with a simple rate freeze or opening up FHA like some have suggested. They owe 20,20,50% and more than they can afford. That is not a scenario that can be resolved with any legislation.

It also means that all of these folks that every politician is jumping over each other to save, bear as much responsibility as anyone else for the crisis. These folks that many claimed were duped would have then turned around and perpetuated the problem. Furthermore, for several years these folks had a simple out, selling, that they could have taken but didn't.

It means that every piece of legislation is not only useless but ultimately counter productive. By trying to save those that are in an impossible situation, the government only throws the perverbial good money after bad. These folks will be foreclosed on rate freeze or not, however rate freezes, bailouts, foreclosure moratoriums, will only cost their creditors even more money than they already will lose. If I am right, then the market needs to take its course and we need to move on as quickly as we can. By delaying the inevitable the government only prolongs what is already painful and makes it more painful.

If I am right, then the proper course of action is cold hard capitalism. These folks need to be foreclosed on and innovative entrepeneurs need to come in and buy all of these properties in bulk and find income and investment opportunities in millions of new undervalued properties. I believe this will happen one way or another since there is really no saving most of these folks. Unfortunately, well meaning, though obscenely naive, politicians want to propose a series of bailouts and other measures designed to help folks that are in my estimation stuck in an impossible situation.